
The legislative piece is part of a larger plan referred to as the “great bargain” and devised by state legislators with the intention to end a more than a two-year budget impasse. Despite gaining the necessary support, the bill cannot move forward on its own. Part of the “great bargain” was opposed by Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner last week, which means that the whole plan has been put on hold for now.
It is believed that the state would be contributed up to $1 billion in licensing fees and related costs, if gambling expansion is greenlighted. Casino proponents have also pointed out that numerous construction and permanent jobs would be created once and if the measure is approved.
It is believed that Illinois is losing casino revenue to neighboring Indiana. Under the bill, a land-based casino in Chicago and five more such properties in different other places could keep gambling money within the state.
The legislative piece also provides for the construction not just of standalone casinos, but of multi-purpose casino complexes, which, according to lobbyists and lawmakers, would open the state for meeting and convention activity, something Illinois has been lacking in so far.
If SB 7 is approved, this would put an end to the riverboat monopoly in Illinois. At present, casino gambling options are only provided on riverboats around the state. The land-based gambling expansion would also result in certain changes in the way gambling facilities are taxed. Some of the state’s riverboat casinos are currently taxed at up to 50%. Under the proposed legislation, casinos will pay a 16% tax on table games and a 20% on revenue from slot machines. It has been estimated that the amount of $560 million could be generated in annual tax revenue, if the bill is signed into law.
The proposed state gambling expansion would also include the addition of slot machines at four horse racing tracks. Slot machines would also be installed at Chicago airports in a bid for additional gambling revenue to be generated.
The gambling expansion bill cannot be sent to the House before all other legislations tacked onto the larger budget scheme gain the necessary support in the Senate. What is more, when and if sent to the House, it is still quite unclear how it would be received by House lawmakers.

